Defending the legitimate application of democratic norms is important, and so is making sure that we don’t pull a Neville Chamberlain. But I don’t think that’s why the West has reacted so strongly to the Crimea situation. I’m convinced it’s because people around the world are committed to the existing boundaries of nation-states – even when they make absolutely no sense.

I am no fan of the Crimean annexation’s democratic basis and am legitimately worried about Putin invading other countries. Those are valid concerns – but they aren’t the whole reason that everyone objects to this invasion. A large part of it comes from a popular belief in the legitimacy of nationalism – a sense that the status quo, as established in roughly 1945, is the natural state of the world and that it is inherently harmful to change it, especially by combining states.

3 thoughts on “Why are we so obsessed with existing national borders – especially in Africa?”

I don’t think the concern is really over combining states. If anything, most international organizations and groupings seem to be encouraging this in Africa. Witness things like the East African Community, etc.

The concern is the opposite one, fragmentation. Sure, the boundaries may be arbitrary, but secession risks compounding these problems through smaller states still, new conflict zones, and war.

Thanks for writing about an obsession of mine. Why are, for instance, Togo and Benin different countries. Or indeed Nigeria and Cameroon?

DRC and Congo Brazzaville. I drove through almost all of West and Central Africa 12 years ago, over a period of 2 years, and I was often left scratching my head. Landlocked Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and Mali – are they so radically different that they cannot be together?

Meaningless artificial identities. ECOWAS has blown chance after chance after chance to unite – often as a result of a fear of being recolonized by the Nigerians. It’s frustrating.